Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF NORTHBROOK COUNTRY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
JUNE SPIEZER, as Trustee of the June Spiezer Revocable Trust Dated 12/16/99, and UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS, Defendants Joseph Spiezer, Intervenor-Appellant.
from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 16 M1 721683
Honorable Martin Moltz, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Presiding Justice Neville and Justice Pucinski
concurred in the judgment and opinion.
1 The Board of Managers of the Northbrook Country Condominium
Association sued June Spiezer, trustee of the June Spiezer
Revocable Trust, to recover common expenses owed on her
condominium unit. After the trial court entered a default
judgment and order of possession, her son, Joseph Spiezer,
moved that the default judgment and order of possession be
vacated, which the trial court granted. Joseph then moved to
quash service, which the trial court denied, finding Joseph
submitted to the court's jurisdiction by filing the
motion to vacate. The trial court entered another order of
possession in favor of the Board.
2 Joseph timely appealed the order of possession, but the
appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. Board of
Managers of Northbrook Country Condominium Ass'n v.
Spiezer, No. 1-13-0573 (Aug. 28, 2013) (unpublished
summary order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(c)).
Almost three years later, Joseph filed a motion in the trial
court to vacate the order of possession and for an accounting
and judgment in his favor. The trial court found it no longer
had jurisdiction and dismissed his motion, as well as a
motion to reconsider.
3 Joseph appeals arguing (i) the trial court had jurisdiction
to rule on his motions and (ii) the order of possession was
void and the complaint should be dismissed. Having let his
appeal on these issues lapse, Joseph cannot exhume his case
by motion, and we must dismiss.
4 Further, in his brief, Joseph's attorney, K.O. Johnson,
disparages opposing counsel and makes a number of statements
that call into question the trial and appellate court's
integrity. Because of the acerbity of his statements and his
past behavior (a panel of this court previously warned
Johnson regarding improper conduct), we order that he show
cause within 30 days why sanctions should not be imposed
under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994).
6 On August 31, 2012, the Board of the Northbrook Country
Condominium Association filed a forcible entry and detainer
complaint against June Spiezer, as trustee of the June
Spiezer Revocable Trust and unknown occupants, seeking
possession and common expenses. June died some nine months
earlier, and, in addition to serving the summons and
complaint on unknown occupants, the Board served Joseph
Spiezer, June's son. After the trial court entered a
default order of possession in the Board's favor, Joseph
successfully moved to vacate the order of possession. Joseph
also moved to quash service, but the trial court denied the
motion, finding that by filing the motion to vacate, he
submitted to the court's jurisdiction.
7 On January 4, 2013, Joseph, as trustee of June Spiezer
Trust, quitclaimed the condominium unit to himself. On
January 16, 2013, the trial court once again entered an order
of possession in the Board's favor. Joseph filed a timely
notice of appeal, which the appellate court dismissed for
want of prosecution. Spiezer, No. 1-13-0573.
8 Nearly three years later, on May 20, 2016, Joseph filed a
petition to vacate the January 16, 2013, order of possession
under section 2-1401(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735
ILCS 5/2-1401(f) (West 2014)), arguing the order of
possession was void because June was deceased when the
complaint was filed and her beneficiaries were not named as a
party. Joseph voluntarily withdrew the section 2-1401
petition on June 21, 2016. On August 2, 2016, Joseph filed a
motion to intervene in the forcible entry and detainer case,
rearguing that June predeceased the filing of the case and
her beneficiaries had not been properly served with a summons
and complaint. Joseph asserted he should be allowed to
intervene to vacate the January 16, 2013, judgment, to
present a motion for an accounting, and to obtain judgment in
his favor for rental income the Board received on the
property after entry of the order of possession.
9 By agreed order, the trial court continued the motion
several times while the parties engaged in settlement talks.
On November 10, 2016, Joseph's attorney withdrew and his
new attorney filed an appearance. The trial court continued
the case to allow both parties to respond to Joseph's
motion to intervene. On November 16, 2016, Joseph's new
attorney filed another motion, seeking an accounting and
asking the trial court to vacate the January 16, 2013,
judgment and enter judgment in Joseph's favor. After the
Board responded, the trial court entered an order on December
23, 2016, dismissing Joseph's motions for lack of
jurisdiction finding that the "revestment doctrine,
" as explained in People v. Bailey, 2014 IL
115459, did not permit the court to exercise jurisdiction.
Joseph filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court
denied on March 9, 2017. On April 5, 2017, Joseph filed a
notice of appeal from the December 23, 2016, order dismissing
his motions and the March 9, 2017, order denying his motion
11 In his initial brief, Joseph asserts this court has
jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306 (eff. Jan.
1, 2016) and Rule 303 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015). In his reply,
however, Joseph abandons his argument that Rule 306 provides
a basis for appellate jurisdiction, and relies solely on Rule